Justification of the second amendment

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Alright, I’m sure this must have been spoken about previously due to all the threads on the constitution and gun control, but anyway, here’s a slightly different perspective.

As far as I am aware, the constitution allows Americans to possess guns in order to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

Now a lot of people seem pissed off as the American government seems to have an agenda to remove guns from the people. They are also slowly destroying the constitution and America itself.

It is clearly obvious that the government of America is tyrannical.

Yet you argue with the tyrants that you have a right to own your guns?

So what does this mean? The people are in power as long as they are allowed the right to bear arms?

They already have control of the majority of the masses. They don’t need to take control of your guns. They will ensure that the people will do that instead. Divide and conquer is the game.

Argue all you want, surely that’s the justification of the second amendment is it not?




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by toocoolnc
 

Yep.

the beauty of the second amendment is it will not be needed until they try to take it.- good ole Thomas Jefferson

I don't own a gun but I like having my right to own one.

edit on 11-1-2013 by natalia because: (no reason given)


And it does seem, when my rights are slowly being stripped away, I'm not doing anything about.

I need to take action and start a little community rally of some sort.
edit on 11-1-2013 by natalia because: (no reason given)

Has been brought to my attention that is not a Thomas Jefferson quote .....sorry
edit on 11-1-2013 by natalia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by natalia
reply to post by toocoolnc
 

Yep.

the beauty of the second amendment is it will not be needed until they try to take it.- good ole Thomas Jefferson

I love the quote, but


The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. Falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson; first reported in Matt Carson, On A Hill They Call Capital: A Revolution Is Coming‎ (2007), p. 131. Not found prior to 2007.

Still a good quote though.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
edit on 11-1-2013 by natalia because: Sorry, sorry



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by toocoolnc
 


I think it goes farther than that. Personal responsibility. Personal responsibility for your safety, the safety of your family, your property. Without firearms, all responsibility for your safety rests soley within the state.

The last thing I want to do is "bumper sticker" this thread, but one does ring true.

"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Personal responsibility until you shoot the wrong person, or the person becomes the wrong person after the fact, or the person gunning for you has bigger guns and more ammo, or...the possibilities of a "you lose" situation are pretty much endless. Well, I suppose you can keep upping your supply and firepower too, but then you have to ask yourself "Doesn't this look like the USA/USSR arms race?"

Wouldn't it just be better to address the issues at hand that have created this air of insecurity? Build your community spirit to new highs, higher than ever before in the history of mankind. Really love your fellow man, not just your fellow Americans. Create a government you can trust. What's the point of having one if you're completely left out of anything good from it?

It's time to think about what you're leaving your grandchildren. It's not just about the here and now.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by beezzer
 


Personal responsibility until you shoot the wrong person, or the person becomes the wrong person after the fact, or the person gunning for you has bigger guns and more ammo, or...the possibilities of a "you lose" situation are pretty much endless. Well, I suppose you can keep upping your supply and firepower too, but then you have to ask yourself "Doesn't this look like the USA/USSR arms race?"


Personal responsibility encompasses all aspects of ones actions for better or worse.


Wouldn't it just be better to address the issues at hand that have created this air of insecurity? Build your community spirit to new highs, higher than ever before in the history of mankind. Really love your fellow man, not just your fellow Americans. Create a government you can trust. What's the point of having one if you're completely left out of anything good from it?


You can't trust that the "bad guys" will have bolt action rifles or single-shot firearms. You definitely can't trust the government to have your best interests at heart.


It's time to think about what you're leaving your grandchildren. It's not just about the here and now.


I hope to leave them a place where they can determine their own futures, where they have the responsibility for their own future and security.

A place where government doesn't make that decision for them.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by toocoolnc
 


To date, how many pro 2nd amendment people have used their guns against the goverment that they loudly proclaim are tyranical?

They don't, because for the most part from what I have seen, pro gun people are people that live in fear and paranoia...that is why they need their guns so badly, to make them feel safe. It's funny really, because these will be the last people to stand up to anybody.

Meanwhile, since they need their guns to make them feel safe, guns are so prevelant and easy to get that we have lunatics going around shooting innocent people in public places.

But hey, at least the gun owners feel "safe".



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Do you all realize how utterly useless it is to even conceive that your holding guns is to protect you from a tyrannical government? Do you know that it's illegal to advocate overthrowing the government? You can't even legally discuss it. So you think keeping guns will keep you safe....how?

How's that Constitution thing going for you?



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by toocoolnc
As far as I am aware, the constitution allows Americans to possess guns in order to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.


I take exception and only because when discussing the Constitution, we should be clear in our words and their meanings. The Constitution gives us nothing, it recognizes and codifies a Natural Right; the Right to self-preservation, responsibility and defense; the 2nd Amendment.


So what does this mean? The people are in power as long as they are allowed the right to bear arms?


That is a portion of it yes but not the whole of the equation of where political power is derived from. Even if "they", meaning the Government, have the majority on their side, this is a republic; not a democracy. Those in the majority will still have to sway their representatives (or hope they are already bought off) and then they will have to sway their State legislatures and their city council legislatures and so on and so forth.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Do you all realize how utterly useless it is to even conceive that your holding guns is to protect you from a tyrannical government? Do you know that it's illegal to advocate overthrowing the government? You can't even legally discuss it. So you think keeping guns will keep you safe....how?

How's that Constitution thing going for you?


Since it is impossible to prove a negative, we may never know if our having guns has kept us from a tyrannical government.

What I do know is that every country that has suffered democide was first disarmed. Using those facts, I can logically assume that we are at a hgiher risk of democide, IF we are disarmed. So, I would surmise the Constitution has worked out well for us (thus far).



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SourGrapes
 


Can I have the names of those countries please? I'd like to check some facts, if you don't mind.

Here's the link to that law I mentioned: www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by SourGrapes
 


Can I have the names of those countries please? I'd like to check some facts, if you don't mind.

Here's the link to that law I mentioned: www.law.cornell.edu...


After reading the code, it makes me wonder how academic and or hypothetical discussions play into that law.

I mean it's one thing to start a group to actively plan an insurrection. It's another to say, "well in the event A, B, and/or C were to happen then I consider 1, 2, and/or 3"

Because essentially since this is a conspiracy THEORY site, and such discussions would fall under theory, and therefore generally are academic or hypothetical. And while I have seen a few statements here that are border line, they still are pretty much still in the realm of the hypothetical.
edit on 11-1-2013 by SrWingCommander because: clarification



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by toocoolnc

As far as I am aware, the constitution allows Americans to possess guns in order to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.
Ok, this is the Premise of yours, and many others beliefs.


It is clearly obvious that the government of America is tyrannical.
Well then, ,it is time for all the Rambo's to Step Up.
The Time is Here, The Government is Tyrannical.
Go to it......I'm waiting.

Still Waiting....

And Still Waiting....

Thought So.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SrWingCommander
 


Escalation, my friend. Nip it in the bud before people get the idea that they can actually do something within the law about this situation. They think they can bear arms to prevent a tyrannical government from overruling them. They cannot. They cannot either plot in any way, and I saw no disclaimer on hypothetical plotting there, against this regime. Note the language:




Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.


In my view, it was time to set things out for the people here so we don't have the site shut down. I'm not a mod, obviously, but I don't know how closely they're watching.

If anyone is annoyed at this law, it's most definitely me. But it's just another nail in the coffin of American freedom - and it's why I don't live there anymore. No one is sadder about that than I am.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 

The 2nd amendment says nothing about "tyrannical government", it only recognizes that citizens have the right to defend themselves and the government cannot try to take that away from them. So, I think that level of fear is better described by whomever is afraid (or rather, worried). What if some people feel the need to protect themselves from a giant spider invasion? Or hostile extraterrestrials? Or killer popscicles (but only the orange ones because let's face it, nobody likes those)? These fears might be irrational/improbable, but no one should argue that Americans don't have the right to defend themselves against threats to their freedom. We shouldn't equate gun culture with the right to gun ownership, but many do and it only serves the spirit of freedom. I'm pretty sure you have a right to shoes (maybe not constitutionally protected), what style and how many pairs you own is no concern of mine.

The point is, the Constitution is a framework for how the U.S. government should work. By pointing out the laws against sedition, you confuse the issue. The 2nd is clearly a case of/for defense; sedition is an aggressive act. Put it this way: if I go to my neighbor's home to attack him, I'm sure I'd be morally wrong. If he came to my home to attack me, he'd be liable.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by RCham
 


You got it, The right to bear arms is not purely for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyranical government. It is to protect themselves from any and all threats to their lives and livelihood. People keep claiming that the Second Amendment is purely to protect us from government when that is not the primary reason for it. It is purely for the right of every citizen to protect home and family from anything that might threaten them. America is a dangerous place. Not because of guns, because of bad people that will kick your door in and kill you, or kill you just for fun.

Read this story of kidnapping,torture (4 days) and murder for entertainment and tell me America is a safe place to be unarmed.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by RCham
 


Umm...you missed the point entirely. In bringing that law to the attention of the members here, I was merely trying to make everyone aware that there is a law whereby you really can't talk about overthrowing the government. You really can't. It wasn't about guns, it was about talking about getting rid of the government - something that has been pervasive in quite a few threads but has started escalating now with these rumors.

I think Americans feel they have a lot of freedom that a) they don't really have and b) we out here in the rest of the Western world also have and perhaps even more so. It's interesting that you all think you've got it all. You don't, and you're not even aware of it.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
wow the media has everybody fired up

they will ban high capacity clips, but like the ban on large sodas in NY just means buy 3 mediums if you like. just learn how to reload faster

the background check will now probably include a question about mental illness in your family or anyone living in your house

so the 270 million guns in this country are safe



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 

Here is the problem with the second amendment.....
www.abovetopsecret.com...





top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join